• @SorteKanin@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    246 months ago

    More users is nice, but the real metric should be the quality of the content and discussions. And for me that’s the real winner with Lemmy.

    Quality over quantity.

    • nicetriangle
      link
      fedilink
      146 months ago

      I just hope the platform will expand into more niche content over time. The big topics seem to be news, politics, and some specific tech subjects. Would love to see arts/crafts/hobby related stuff take hold here as well.

      That said, I do think a lot of the discussion happening here is pretty high quality and the place does seem to be improving over time. Time will tell. Hopefully more people wake up to the fact that reddit is not gonna hold up on the long term. I expect them to go IPO crazy this coming year and I don’t think a lot of the core users are going to like it.

    • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]
      link
      English
      146 months ago

      Okay but how do we quantitatively and unambiguously devise a metric for quality? More importantly, how do we come up with a satisfactory approximation to that metric? I’m open to ideas.

      • @twilightwolf90@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        56 months ago

        How about a ratio of post upvotes to avg upvotes per post in a community? At least upvotes somewhat correlate with post quality.

        • @brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          26 months ago

          Character count and thread depth (number of replies deep threads go) are interesting, while imperfect.

          A language model could rate discussion quality.

          User surveys…

          Hard to think of anything perfect.

        • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]
          link
          English
          2
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I like this, but I think that upvotes correspond to things people enjoy, which may or may not be of high quality. I.e., shitposting subs would probably be rated “high quality” when, like… it’s literally the point to post shitty content.

          Also, as stated, that means we have to sum over the entire time history of the community. We would probably want to limit the time history of what is summed over, subject to a maximum for subs with high post counts (like the shitposting subs.

          IMO it’s a great suggestion, but I think it needs to be part of a weighted combination of factors.

        • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]
          link
          English
          16 months ago

          I absolutely think we can approximate it, and MAU furnishes a flawed example of such an approximation.

    • Nix
      link
      fedilink
      English
      96 months ago

      Quantity helps the quality in some important aspects though. For example we don’t have an equivalent to r/LegalAdvice or r/AskDocs because there isn’t large enough amount of people that are doctors/lawyers using Lemmy

    • @shotgun_crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Quality is subjective, you can’t really measure it. Actual numerical stats like the ones from the post are more useful imo

    • cum
      link
      fedilink
      English
      06 months ago

      I just shitpost that’s why my name is cum